That was an improvement of the dutch and english translations.The german translation by Wirth (1933) was in fact right:Das Licht, das zuerst getagt hat,wird dann von lichter Lohe zu einer wallenden Glut werden.

Right. Even IF the OLB had something like "HIMEL-AJA" => "hemel-aaien" (stroke/ caress heaven), it would not prove that it was ment as a joke and thus be fake.Just like we do, our prechristian ancestors will have been creative with their language. Why would they not?The prevailing etymology of Himalaya is from Sanskrit, him (snow) + alaya (dwelling).This may be right or not. Etymologists often disagree with eachother.Whatever the right original meaning was, it is possible that people who knew an 'Indogermanic' language in that time, believed it was "Himel-Laya", meaning something like "leading to heaven" or "laying/ lying in heaven".

Posted 05 November 2013 - 09:17 AM

Knul, on 05 November 2013 - 01:54 AM, said:

part of a letter by Ottema to Over de Linen, dated May, 31th, 1872:

Gij zult zien dat ik het fantasie runskrift, dat in het H.S. voorkomt, heb laten varen.Dat is een bijvoegsel van veel lateren tijd, en zuiver fictie, dus onecht.You will see that I have left out the fantasy-'runskrift' from the manuscript. That was added much later and pure fiction, thus inauthentic.Ik ben tot de eenvoudige overtuiging gekomen, dat het standskrift is de groote letterin den cirkel geteekend en het runskrift dat wat men in de gewone schriften gebruikten waarin het geheele H.S. geschreven is.I have come to the simple conviction, that the 'standskrift' is the big letter, drawn in the circle, and that the runskrift that what was used in common writing and in which the whole manuscript was written.Men zou het eerste theoretisch en het laatste praktisch schrift kunnen noemen.Met veele vriendelijke groeten aan uwe familie.The first might be called theoretic and the other practical writing. With many friendly greetings to your family.~Answer from Cornelis Over de Linden to this, dated 11 june 1872:

Quote

Honorable and very learned Sir!A request for revision, says W. de L. in Spectator magazine of 21 October 1871 # 42, the same I ask you, and all who reject the so-called 'RUN-SKRIFT' as of younger date.In your translation I read: "Oh dear, never let the eyes of a monk gaze upon this script, they speak sweet words, but... etc."From this fear of monks I dare conclude, that they had already captured many of our old manuscripts. I also dare believe dat the Over de Lindens have not been the only ones, who possessed the book of Adela Follistar. When I follow the history of the manuscript, I dare assume that the Romans, the Phoenicians, the Greeks and all Mediterranean peoples learned the letterscript from us.Not copied from the geometric lines of the Jol, but from less neatly produced Frisian manuscripts.In the times when I tortured myself trying to read the handwriting, someone said to me that they might be Phoenician letters. So I looked for a book about the Phoenician language and found one with the title: "Paläographische Studien über phönizische und punische Schrift - Herausgegeben von D. Wilhelm Gesenius. Mit 6 lithographirten tafelen. Leipzig 1835."The letters in that book are very different, but many of them are similar to the STAND and the RUN-SKRIFT as presented in the manuscript. Many or most of the prints of tokens with letters, depict women's heads, that reminded me of the Frisian honorary Mothers. The author says that every Phoenician colony had its own letterscript. But I could not follow him, because he compared the letters with Hebrew ones, which I don't know.If my notion is right, we have been the lettergivers of all Mediterranean peoples. As the Nordic peoples always have been - and still are - the real sea dogs, the French with all their elevated theories not excluded, they were also most in need of letters and ciphars.That the monks, who have invented their own letterscript, stifled ours to make it unreadable, lies in their nature. But who knows how many Copies of the book of Adela's Folstar remain here and elsewhere with kings or in Rome. Now that more than a thousand years have passed, they may have introduced the walking script as capitals, because they are similar to our capitals.If you are so weak as to reject the walking script, out of fear for some barkers, than it is as if you want to duel with the sheath, while passing the sword to them.For in the manuscript it says: "When Fàsta was Mother of honor, she made the running or walking script out of it. The Witking, that is seaking Godfried... etc." So, if the runscript was added more recently, then the above fragment was also added, and then anything can have been added. So I keep protesting against the mutilation.[...]After affable greetings, also to your Niece,Yours,C. Over de Linden

I agree with Over de Linden. Ottema was terribly wrong.Ottema was more learned, but Over de Linden more wise.

Posted 05 November 2013 - 10:34 AM

We've been here before.Does this look like a 19th century handwritten "f" to you, Knul?By some, the OLB 'runskrift' was interpreted as 19th century handwriting.But it isn't.

The symbols that were written in the manuscript as being 'runskrift', don't belong to it. The sort of letterdrawing proves that they may have been added (at the earliest) in the early 18th century. Hiddo Oera Linda did not include that alfabet in runskrift, as it was not needed, while the book itself was written in runskrift. But what was not needed for him, is needed for me in this printed edition, to indicate which printing letters represent which runskrift letters. By means of that table, one can at any time use the printed text to reproduce the book in its original script. I would dearly wish that these fantasyletters would not have been there, as they already have done more than too much harm, having people who saw them get the illusion and declare, that the manuscript can not be more than a century old.Again, for the record: I disagree with Ottema in this.I see no reason to believe that the letters are not authentic.

Translation:You must have misunderstood my last letter and what I meant. I will try to be more clear.The Standskrift is the letterform drawn in the Yol; this standing script is the standard, the model; but for daily use to unwieldy and difficult.Thus the manuscript was also not written in Standskrift. Fàsta derived her simplified Runskrift from it, by taking the letter out of the Yol and making the letters of equal size.In this Runskrift the manuscript was written. This script is the Run, and not the symbols on page 46. When you take a good look at them, you will see:1. that they were written with a goose quill and not with pencil as is the whole manuscript2. that the ink is pale and of a kind, very different from the pure black ink of the manuscriptThe old ink does not contain iron and does not bleach or rust, as does the later ink with iron. The old 13th century ink is more like the Chinese ink.Moreover, if that script was the daily or walking script, then the manuscript should have been written in it. And to write that would have been much more difficult. I have tried it and found that writing with those curls is slower.The Runskrift was taken over by the Krekalanders and as evidence of what Runskrift is, I herewith send you a sample of Oldgreek writing, and a Greek alfabet with the Frisian letters under it.This will show you, that the Greeks took over almost all letter-shapes, although they were sometimes mistaken in their use. But it provides enough proof that they imitated the Frisian script.Hiddo Oera Linda did not need to add the Runscript to his alfabet as the whole manuscript was Runscript. Therefore he left the space open and not filled up. This open space was used by someone later to experiment.Just like the page numbers, those curly letters have nothing to do with the manuscript. They don't belong to it and serve no purpose anyway, because no document exists that is written with such letters. It is and remains a fantasy-alfabet. (added a sample in Greek script)~~~In a following post, I will add what Jensma wrote about this, and what my comments are.To avoid misunderstanding:I don't agree with Ottema. In my opinion, the whole manuscript was written in Standskrift and the curly Runscrift can very well be authentic. More detail later.

SWETSAR is more 'aangrenzenden', and SWETNATA 'grensgenoten', but there's hardly a difference. Buren (neighbors) for both is a liberal, but acceptable translation. Note that two varieties are used in fragment 1 and 2, only 2 lines apart. Also note that SWET, SWÉT means sweet in OLB.

IMO, it is possible that the name "Switserland" is derived from SWETSARLAND.

Jensma translated assuming that OLB is full of intended pun/ ambiguities (dubbelzinnigheden), to which I don't agree. He likewise translated FRYAS (sometimes) with 'vrije Friezen'.

Posted 08 November 2013 - 02:17 PM

Knul, on 07 November 2013 - 08:17 PM, said:

If part of a book is written in the same hand and this same hand belongs to a later century (as Ottema admits), the whole book is written in a later century.

We are talking about these fragments ("RUN"-script, the curly letters/ numbers under the wheel-mode letters/ numbers):"If part of a book is written in the same hand..."I believe Hidde made both the Stand- and the Run-script (I see no reason why he couldn't have), but it is impossible to prove."... and this same hand belongs to a later century (as Ottema admits)..."Ottema <assumed> it, but there is no evidence. The ink was never tested, as far as I know. It seems obvious that the RUN is written with a different pen and ink, but that does not mean it must have been a different hand that wrote it."... the whole book is written in a later century."This conclusion fails, because both arguments (same hand, later century) are invalid (not proven).

Posted 08 November 2013 - 02:33 PM

Knul, on 07 November 2013 - 09:05 PM, said:

It has been said that Ottema committed suicide, when he found out, that the OLB was fake (Jensma), but the real reason could well be, that someone found, that Ottema changed the plate of letters and left out the 19th century runskript. The someone could be Wopke Eekhoff, antiquarian and bookseller in Leeuwarden, who cooperated in the distribution of the OLB. It has been questioned, why Eekhoff kept silent in the discussions about the OLB. Van der Mey/Hellinga suggested that this had something te do with Halbertsma (see below), but more obvious is, that it has something to do with Ottema. Eekhoff knew the original manuscript, at least from the meetings of the Frisian Society and could easily see, that Ottema changed the letter plate, because he distributed the OLB himself.This was certainly a crime, as the whole nation was deceived by Ottema. A good reason to commit suicide.

Once more: That the Runscript would be from the 19th century (or any other than the 13th C.) is not proven.That Ottema may have felt bad about having manipulated page 46 - against the strong advice of Cornelis Over de Linden! - could very well be.It was indeed a huge mistake to do this.As long as we don't have a suicide note or trustable witness report, we can only speculate about how and why Ottema died. Like I said - we can't even be sure that it was suicide.The suggestion that Eekhoff might have had anything to do with it, sounds like wild speculation to me.

Posted 08 November 2013 - 02:45 PM

Knul, on 08 November 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

Just compare the words STAND and RUN, obviously in the same hand.

Yes, to that I would agree.And I do believe that the same hand made the 'curly' letters.But I don't see why they can't be authentic (copied by Hidde from an older original).

Posted 08 November 2013 - 04:41 PM

Knul, on 08 November 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

Because such letters did not yet exist in mediëval manuscripts.

Weren't there Roman sources that said the 'barbarians' wrote in a script similar to Greek? Whatever that script really was, none of it was saved.Those medieval manuscripts would not have been written in everyday handwriting, but in calligraphy.At school I learned an oldfashioned handwriting (the sort that you don't have to lift your pen from the paper between every letter), but when I wrote down my genealogy I used block letters that were more easy to read.Many people can write in more than one script. The Standscript, based on the Yol, will have been what for us is a printing letter, while the Runscript would have been for everyday use on paper (berk - birken - perkament /// beuk - buch - book /// pompebledar - pompier/ pampier - papier) that would have fallen apart or burnt.The old manuscripts we have, were kept by monks (or other authorities). Why is virtually nothing saved from the vanquished? Right, because they were vanquished.Liko warned his descendants for a good reason.nihil sub sole novum

Quote

Capitals can never be called runskrift. It's simply not speedy.

Some of them look like our (handwriting) capitals, but not all. And my reconstruction showed that they can be written in a flowing line.The A, Á, À, F are different, we don't have the reversed Y (usually transcribed as Í) or the NG letter.It will have been fast for a trained hand, and more practical than the Standscript, because every time you lift your pen from the paper or put it back on again, the ink can make a stain. It's easier to keep the pen on the paper. But it would have been more difficult to read for a random reader as there would be more variety (just like today).When you have to fill out a form, they usually ask you to use 'block letters'.~ A quote from Multatuli (1820-1887) is applicable here."Ik trek voor die echtheid geen party. God bewaarme! Ik heb te weinig gegevens. En bovendien, er komen ook passages in voor die te kinderachtig zyn om van te spreken. Maar juist hierin ligt 'n nieuwe waarschuwing tegen snel oordelen en hoovaardig verwerpen. Want meent men dat de toch altyd zeer bekwame vervalscher niet op de hoogte was om intezien dat die zwakke zotte passages hem diskrediteeren zouden? Geen schooljongen zelfs zou van Neef Teunis hebben durven spreken." (volgens Jensma: 22-10-1875)Translated:"I will not judge the authenticity. God save me! I have too little information. And besides, there are fragments that are too childish for words. But exactly that is another warning against fast judgement and haughty rejection. Because why would the supposed masterforger not have understood that those weak, silly parts would make people suspicious? No schoolboy even would have dared speak of Neef (nephew) Tunis (for Neptune)."If we assume that it is all fake, then the forger has made an extreme effort to make it look old (paper, language, script, spelling variety, etc.), while at the same time adding things (like the alfabet page) that make it utterly unbelievable (for the people of his time).How much sense does this make?

Posted 09 November 2013 - 09:49 AM

Knul, on 09 November 2013 - 02:15 AM, said:

... the type used in the OLB is a modern type, not a medieval.

It may look like a modern type to many, but you still ignore that the F is completely different and there is no modern NG letter.There just is no other (pre-) medieval example available (yet).With the current techniques, it should be very easy to determine age of paper and ink.Yet, after many years of so-called research, there is no clear answer.(If there would be, the official OLB-site would link to it.)This says enough.

Posted 09 November 2013 - 09:58 AM

kmt_sesh, on 09 November 2013 - 06:10 AM, said:

As far back as the second century CE some tribes from Germania had adopted characters from the Latin script...

Cornelis over de Linden tried to get a lot of money for the manuscript, even advised by Ottema. At the end no one wanted to buy it, not even the Worp MS. Stadermann and Son made money out of everything.

I don't have those letters at hand, and can't find our earlier discussion about it.As far as I remember, some Englishman had approached OdL and offered money after OLB was published.OdL wrote Ottema about it (who answered), but decided NOT to sell it after all.OdL initially believed the manuscript contained information about a family treasure, but when he got older and gave up deciphering it himself, he sent it to (what he thought would be) the specialists (in Leeuwarden).If it was a fraud and he wanted to make money with it, it would make no sense to send it to specialists, because that would risk it being reveiled as fake.What is your source for him trying to sell the Worp? I remember that the Frisian Society very eagerly wanted to have it."Stadermann and Son made money out of everything"If you mean they were book traders, what do you expect?What are your sources for this anyway?

Posted 09 November 2013 - 10:23 AM

Knul, on 09 November 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

Standskrift is the jol script (in circles). The OLB letters differ from this jol script.

Then what would you call the normal OLB letters (that are modeled after the Jol)?They don't differ from the standard, they are sometimes just less precise, which is only normal in handwriting.

Posted 09 November 2013 - 10:25 AM

Knul, on 09 November 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

There has been a recent investigation of the paper. It has been discussed here before. Abramelin will remember.

I remember very well, as I translated the reports. The results were too vague to be serious.A more detailed report was planned to be published this year, but I have heard nothing of it yet.Anyway, if some clear answer would have come out, the official OLB-site (from Tresoar) should mention it.

The Yol (...) from that Frya made the Standskrift, that she used for her Tex.Why would she make a wheel for every letter writing her whole Tex?Can you imagine that?It makes no sense to me.The wheel is how the letters were designed, it was the standard.But writing a text, why make a wheel every time?

H

here are some samples of how children learn to write at school.

Nobody knows who first designed these letters. It is an old tradition and it may as well be much older than most of us can imagine.Notice how the OLB-runskrift F looks more like a greek F, but nothing like the western F's above.I know some will say that we got them from the Romans, but where did they get them from?

Posted 09 November 2013 - 12:08 PM

NO-ID-EA, on 09 November 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

surely even if we get a scientific appraisal of both the ink , and the paper it will not change anything

If the outcome is, that it's from the 13th centrury, it will change everything. Then it is an authentic 13th century manuscript.(Hardcore skeptics may still argue that it may have been 13th century fiction.)But if paper and ink would turn out to be from the 19th century, it could indeed still be a copy of an older original. Like Multatuli I can imagine no-one (or no group) who could have created something like it then, not even nowadays.Let's try some logic.It has been examined for a long time. Modern techniques could easily determine age of paper and ink.IF the outcome would be that it's 19th century, it would confirm Jensma's theory (he is head of the research group), and it would be published in Frisian and Dutch newspapers and on the official OLB site.But instead there is silence.That can only mean that the results they got are not the results they want.

Knul, on 09 November 2013 - 12:23 PM, said:

The Romans derived their script from the Etruscans.

If so, where did the Etruscans get it from?

Posted 09 November 2013 - 12:51 PM

Knul, on 09 November 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

It means, that no one is interested any more. Who would be interested in a 19th century hoax ?

OLB is part (#23) of the 'Canon' of Frisian history.That means it is considered to be one of the most significant subjects (whether hoax or not).Say Knul, why would you be interested in a 19th century hoax?

Knul, on 09 November 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

From the Greeks.

Where did the Greeks get it from?

NO-ID-EA, on 09 November 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

if its 13th C it wont change much

You have no imagination. It would be utterly unique in its kind and a treasure for linguists.

The difference between us, as that I answer all your questions, while you ignore anything that is in conflict with your theory.

Knul, on 09 November 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

I am interested in all sort of historical hoaxes...

In that case I recommend the Anne Frank Diary.

Posted 09 November 2013 - 08:27 PM

Some relevant quotes from "De Germanen en het christendom. Een bewogen ontmoeting (5de – 7de eeuw)", author Pierre Trouillez.("The Germanic Tribes and Christianity. A fierce encounter, 5th - 7th century")quote 1 - page 133 (my underlining)In 455 things didn't go more meek in Braga. After the Visigoth king Theoderik II had taken the Sueban capital, 'the sacred basilica was broken in, the altars were knocked down and shattered, the devoted virgins were taken away, but respectfully treated, and the clerics were disrobed to the limits of the appropriate.' (Hydatius of Chaves, Chronicle, 174)Original text:In 455 ging het er in Braga niet zachtzinniger aan toe. Nadat de Visigothische koning Theoderik II de Suevische hoofdstad ingenomen had, 'werd in de basilieken van de heiligen binnengebroken, werden de altaren omvergegooid en verbrijzeld, de gewijde maagden weggevoerd, maar met respect behandeld, en de clerici ontkleed tot aan de grenzen van het welvoeglijke.' (Hydatius van Chaves, Kroniek, 174)My comments:Most interesting is that these 'barbarians' treated the devoted virgins with respect. This would be expected if they were from a tradition that had FÁMNA as described in OLB.Also interesting are the names of the Germanic kings and queens, as their meaning can almost always be explained with the OLB-language: Theoderik = THJUD - RIK = folk/ people - rich

quote 2 - page 138 (my underlining):Long before the time of the christian Roman Empire, heathen intellectuals had left the polytheism of the common people and turned their spirit to the highest One of neoplatonism. The criticism of religion from the Greek mythologist Euhemerus († ca. 260 BCE) fitted in that tradition. In his Sacred History [Hiera Anagraphê] he had argued that the Greek gods were originally very heroic and meritorious mortals, who had begotten devine traits in the collective memory of humanity.Original text:Reeds lang vóór de tijd van het christelijke Romijnse Rijk hadden heidense intellectuelen afscheid genomen van het volkse polytheïsme en hun geest naar het hoogste Ene van het neoplatonisme gekeerd. Daaraan was de godsdienstkritiek van de Griekse mytholoog Euhemerus († circa 260 v.C.) niet vreemd. In Het heilige opschrift [Hiera Anagraphê] had hij betoogd dat de Griekse goden oorspronkelijk bijzonder heldhaftige en verdienstelijke mensen waren geweest, die in het collectieve geheugen van de mensheid goddelijke trekken hadden gekregen.Comment:This also fits very well with the tradition as described in the OLB. The highest One being Wralda and all mythological gods and goddesses explained as having been heroic mortals who were deified by priesthoods (Wodin, Neptune, Minerva, Buda, etc.).A general comment about the whole book:In the first few centuries of christianity, there was a fierce and bloody fight between two varieties of the Christian religion. The Germanic tribes had easily accepted a belief in One God and the teachings of the wise mortal Christ, but they could not accept the (later Roman Catholic) idea of the holy Trinity (a.o. Jesus being son of god and/or equal to god) and initial sin. They were so-called Arianists (named after Arius (ca. 250–336 CE)). Many of these tribes later adopted Islam, which also has just one god (of All, not one chosen people) and the messengers (prophets) as mortals.This is very much like the philosophy of the OLB, in which priesthoods that deify mortals (drochtne, idols) are fiercly rejected and stressed that there is only one supreme creator (beginning and end of all): VVR-ALDA.I will try to explain this better later, I think it is highly relevant.

... "Egipteland" in the OLB?... that was the way it was called - some times - in the Dutch Protestant Bible dating from the 17th century

Why was it called that in the 17th C. bible?Because that was how people called it long before that bible was printed.

Quote

The OLB talks about "prester" or priest in English. (...)It's a word borrowed from church latin.

On 'etymologiebank' it says:"Ontleend, wrsch. via een vulgair-Latijnse vorm *prester ‘priester’..."=> probably derived from ... etc.I think the words may be related, but not that prester is derived from presbyter or presbuteros.

The first -T- doesn't doesn't just disappear on command, as much as you'd want it to be.

This name is in various sources related to Allah, the sun, light-god, fire-god, Osisris, Bacchus, Dionysos, supreme-god, creator-god, etc.All this long before Islam.The name has UR/ VR and ALT/ ALD.All coincidence?I think not.This was the spelling by Herodotus (c. 484 - 425 BCE), Arabian sources may have many other spellings.In almost 150 years of OLB-study, no-one ever came with this clue,It begs for further investigation.Two more sources/ spellings I just found:pantheon.org/orotalarturjotaef-numancia.blogspot/osiris

Posted 12 November 2013 - 09:57 AM

"Egipteland"

Abramelin, on 11 November 2013 - 11:49 PM, said:

It was ONLY called that way in the Dutch Protestant Bible of the 17th century. Nowhere else.

You are the one who believes OLB is the result of a conspiracy.I don't.There have been good reasons to ignore, ridicule, demonise or lie about the OLB:M. de Jong (1927, "Het geheim van het Oera-Linda-Boek") made clear that some saw the book as dangerous:"Some see the OLB as the deceptive masterpiece of dark powers, created with the apparent goal of undermining the foundations of church and society."Original text:"er zijn er ook, die in het Oera-Linda-Boek het bedrieglijk kunstwerk van machten der duisternis zien, vervaardigd met het blijkbare doel de grondslagen van Kerk en Maatschappij te ondermijnen."

suche / zoek / soek / sök / søk / søg / seek/ sykje

F R Y A ~ S K É D N I S E

the early speech of our fore-fathers

"The pure Friesic and easy wording of the Oera Linda Book must be most welcome to students of English and Saxon, as a widening of the now too narrow ground of the early speech of our fore-fathers." Wm. Barnes. Macmillan's Magazine,April 1877, p. 465.

Video Studies

Cornelis Over de Linden (1811-1874) Den Helder

Eelco Verwijs (1830-1880)

first scholar who studied the manuscript and confirmed its authenticity (1867) - later he withdrew this conclusion, probably to save his career

Jan Ottema (1804-1879) Leeuwarden

first translator and publisher of the 'Oera Linda Bok' (1872 & 1876)

the oldest production of European literature

"We may thus accept that we possess in this manuscript, of which the first part was composed in the sixth century before our era, the oldest production, after Homer and Hesiod, of European literature. And here we find in our fatherland a very ancient people in possession of development, civilisation, industry, navigation, commerce, literature, and pure elevated ideas of religion, whose existence we had never even conjectured."Dr. J.G. Ottema, 1871 (translation Sandbach)